We seriously question how this application came to be validated. The drawings are plainly neither correctly labeled nor consistent. As a result we have little faith in their accuracy nor of the application as a whole. Corrected drawings should be obtained before consent is considered. We assume the rooflights shown already exist or benefit from consent as they are not included in the application description. On the assumption that there are no changes to the elevations other than to the side and rear as a result of the insertion of the dormer, then the proposal is acceptable in form. However we note the standard of the resultant accommodation (both the new flat and the altered first floor flat) is poor and no consideration is given to the increased pressure on amenity, servicing, etc.

We note the pre-application advice - that all windows should be timber - has been ignored. We find this advice sound and ought to be heeded. As it stands the application is unacceptable as neither the so-called 'heritage' UPVC windows nor the aluminium windows are shown in any detail that demonstrate they are acceptable replacements.

The egregious contempt of this application is astonishing. The drawings do not represent the existing elevations in any meaningful way. The windows of this property are finely detailed timber sashes and are part of a pattern widely used in the vicinity. In fact in this particular terrace the vast majority of the windows retain this detail with only two exceptions (which presumably pre-date the conservation area). Only like-for-like timber is likely to be acceptable - possibly with double glazing if the units are sufficiently slim. In any event detailed drawings, would be needed.

2017/1658 & 2017/169298 Clapton Common (1-6 Belz Terrace) E5 9ALDemolition of part single-storey, part two-storey rear/side extensions at ground and first floor levels containing bathrooms and water tank; erection of three-storey rear/side extensions at ground, first and second floor levels to contain lift; removal of stainless steel flue from front elevation (Tim Wild 0208 356 8253)

Whist the removal of the water tank and later additions are welcome, the proposed lift shaft is inelegant and clumsy - particularly at the top floor where it protrudes the roof line. This is an insensitive addition to a listed building.

Our observations are equally applicable to the applications for both nos 2 and 3 Clapton Terrace save where indicated.

We are unconvinced by the need for the wholesale removal of the existing trees which appears to be based on assumptions that ought to be reassessed once some clearance works are done - particularly now that significant time has passed since the reports were written and the full planning permission was granted. The first preference should now be to keep, but manage, the existing growth, before total loss of any trees is considered. In particular T3 seems capable and worthy of retention.

In line with our comments on the earlier associated full planning permission we remain concerned that the chosen massing presents significant design issues which have proved all but impossible to resolve. The large squat box detracts from the elegant proportions of the original Georgian elevation. This is most notable on No 2 but applies to a lesser extent to the extension proposed for No 3.

It is notable that precedents for the timber and glass design structure are shown as a single storey extension, which likely wouldn't suffer the same problems of bulk and uneasy proportions. This goes some way to suggesting that the design should be limited to one storey if it is not to harm the architectural significance of the host building. In addition the materials need more thought and an illustration of how they will age and weather, if they are to remain complementary to the listed structure through the passage of time.

We suspect, given the difficulties this design presents, the applicant will need to go back to the drawing board with a different approach to the massing and possibly consider the extent to which the internal layout is driving compromises in design.

This application appears not to differ in substance from the withdrawn 2017/0824 and our comments still apply:

The Clapton CAAC is unconvinced by the proposal. The simplified form and materials give it the appearance of a garden shed, incongruously placed on a roof. The proposed tall glazing attempts to make a modern design statement but instead confuses the design. Some more natural materials may soften the impact of the proposal and make it acceptable, however the site is readily overlooked by railway so design and form are critical.

2017/15212 Sutton Place E9 6EHExternal alterations including the installation of double-glazing over the front lightwell, widening of lower ground floor entrance into the front lightwell including installation of glazed double doors and replacement of vault doors. Internal alterations including widening the opening between the kitchen and dining room at lower ground floor level, reorientation of kitchen door, replacement of all internal floor coverings and installation of sink in first floor rear bedroom. (Alix Hauser 020 8356 6377)

The proposal has all the subtlety of a helipad with its massive, overbearing projecting slab roof atop an unusually tall block roof extension. This is plainly harmful to the conservation area and to the host building with its finely detailed roof parapet.

The iterative developments on this property will result in a cumulative ensemble that is clearly an overdevelopment and a significant mess which detracts from the setting of the Conservation Area, adjacent, and views out of it.

2017/1601138 Evering Road N16 7BDErection of rear roof extension; insertion of two rooflights to front and two rooflights to rear roofslope; to facilitate the creation of a new residential unit. (Nick Bovaird 0208 356 8291)